Leaders will be measured on a defined scale, that is set based on their standing in the organization, nature of work, seniority. Based on their year-end standings, their bosses can review their work and reassign the priorities. This will make appraisals easier and more transparent.
The standings can be shared across the organization for all to view how progress is being made.
There is a perception that the appraisal executed is biased in some manner and there could have been a different thinking applied for the situations faced by the Managers while performing their tasks.
How do you get beyond such a scenario and come up with a system that is acceptable to everyone? Of course, any system will have its share of backers and critics but if one can be transparent with the ratings, the grief caused might be limited.
One will also not feel the effects of the Forced Ranking due to the Bell-curve - the performance is available for everyone to view and analyze.
With this suggestion, all the leaders will be aware in real-time how and where they stand and make appropriate changes to improve their standing in the Leaderboard.
For e.g., Deals won in the range of $5 Million will result in winning 50 points while successfully delivering a project worth $ 10 Million will result in 75 points.
The points will be approved by the next-level Reporting Managers even though other Groups are also free to assign points for exceptional performance (with appropriate justification).
The numbers can be worked out based on the organization but the concept remains the same.
Moreover, the Managers need not wait for 6 months or 1 year to get feedback. They will be able to see how their standings change based on the points they receive.